Court: FCC can't regulate Internet

Tags:

Text Size

-

+

reset

The unanimous ruling, written by Judge David Tatel, places the courts squarely in the middle of the heavily lobbied controversy.
AP Photo

S. Derek Turner, research director for Free Press, which took the opposite side in the case, said that “the decision has forced the FCC into an existential crisis, leaving the agency unable to protect consumers in the broadband marketplace and unable to implement the National Broadband Plan.

“As a result of this decision, the FCC has virtually no power to stop Comcast from blocking websites. The FCC has virtually no power to make policies to bring broadband to rural America, to promote competition, to protect consumer privacy or truth in billing. This cannot be an acceptable outcome for the American public and requires immediate FCC action to re-establish legal authority.”

Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, said in a statement that the decision “means there are no protections in the law for consumers’ broadband services. Companies selling Internet access are free to play favorites with content on their networks, to throttle certain applications or simply to block others.”

“In addition, as of now, the Federal Communications Commission’s ambitious National Broadband Plan to help boost the economy is in legal limbo. The ability of the FCC to support broadband through universal service is in jeopardy, as is the agency’s ability to protect consumer privacy, ensure access to broadband-based emergency communications or promote access to broadband for the disabled. In our view, the FCC needs to move quickly and decisively to make sure that consumers are not left at the mercy of telephone and cable companies.”

The case itself stemmed from a suit bought by Comcast Internet subscribers who discovered that the company was interfering with peer-to-peer applications — which allow the sharing of large files over the Web and consume large amounts of broadband.

Free Press and another advocacy organization, Public Knowledge, joined with a coalition of public interest groups to challenge Comcast’s actions. The FCC ordered Comcast to stop its interference. Comcast then went to court, arguing that the agency did not have sufficient powers under existing laws and policy to set rules for the Internet.

In a statement, Comcast Vice President of Government Communications Sena Fitzmaurice said the company was “gratified” by the decision and “remains committed to the FCC’s existing open Internet principles. …We will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet.”

Readers' Comments (97)

To all independent companies out there, I say: FIGHT! Keep the government out of internet control as long as possible. It is simply another attempt by the current corrupt administration to control information, free speech, free enterprise, and individual choice.

Obama: Get your grimy claws away from my computer. Your job is to protect our country and keep us safe. We can handle the rest.

As long as there is almost no competition in the ISP market there needs to be net neutrality. So either the government should take over all the physical infrastructure and rent the lines out to multiple ISPs to create real competition or the ISPs need to agree that they will not block traffic they do not like.

Let's say Comcast is the only provider in your area. Without net neutrality they could block any sites they wanted. Are you using the internet to watch TV? Oh, let's ban YouTube and Hulu. You are using a new internet startup company instead of Amazon? Well, let's block that new internet startup company and force you to use Amazon for all your online purchases.

The internet has become a necessity for millions of Americans and ISPs shouldn't have the power to block any websites and traffic they want to when there isn't an easy alternative for the person.

As long as there is almost no competition in the ISP market there needs to be net neutrality. So either the government should take over all the physical infrastructure and rent the lines out to multiple ISPs to create real competition or the ISPs need to agree that they will not block traffic they do not like.

Let's say Comcast is the only provider in your area. Without net neutrality they could block any sites they wanted. Are you using the internet to watch TV? Oh, let's ban YouTube and Hulu. You are using a new internet startup company instead of Amazon? Well, let's block that new internet startup company and force you to use Amazon for all your online purchases.

The internet has become a necessity for millions of Americans and ISPs shouldn't have the power to block any websites and traffic they want to when there isn't an easy alternative for the person.

It is simply another attempt by the current corrupt administration to control information, free speech, free enterprise, and individual choice.

Wait, so the government telling ISPs that they shouldn't block traffic and websites they don't like and should keep everything equal on the internet is Obama trying to control information and free speech? Please tell me how that works.

Also, the judges were making a ruling on an August 2008 order from the FCC to Comcast to stop blocking certain traffic. The Bush administration also was for net neutrality, this isn't just an Obama thing.

The government has to hire people like me to run their computer systems because they don't know Jack about computers. Putting the FCC in charge of the internet is a horrible decision. They haven't got the first clue as to what makes a good security policy.

Do you really want big brother controlling the last bastion of free speech? I don't! If the FCC gets control of the internet, it's not just about providing ISP's. They also control the blogs. They can say that I can't blog any more because there aren't enough opposing views. They can shut off my e-mail because I'm "inflammatory". This was a huge win today for innovation and freedom of speech. Keep them the hell out of the internet and leave that to us.

To all independent companies out there, I say: FIGHT! Keep the government out of internet control as long as possible. It is simply another attempt by the current corrupt administration to control information, free speech, free enterprise, and individual choice.

Obama: Get your grimy claws away from my computer. Your job is to protect our country and keep us safe. We can handle the rest.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or if you have no idea what net neutrality is? The FCC is trying to protect citizens' rights with this. It's your ISP who wants to limit what you can and can't do on the internet.

Net Neutrality does not mean blocking web sites or content. It specifically relates to an internet provider controlling the broadband scope/speed to their own customers. The government wants a complete open highway for all customers & to allow for any other ISP providers access to another companies cable lines, whereas the internet providers want to better manage the data flow rate based primarily upon usage, and to be able to charge or block other companies from using their investments (cable wiring, infrastructure networks, etc) without proper compensation.

The libs lose again....boo hoo. Freedom of speech is alive and well in America.

We can only hope that the large companies listed in this story come out strong with donations to Republican candidates in November and we clean house of Democrats. There is hope for America after all.

clingingredneck: Apr. 6, 2010 - 2:49 PM EST

The government has to hire people like me to run their computer systems because they don't know Jack about computers. Putting the FCC in charge of the internet is a horrible decision. They haven't got the first clue as to what makes a good security policy.

Do you really want big brother controlling the last bastion of free speech? I don't! If the FCC gets control of the internet, it's not just about providing ISP's. They also control the blogs. They can say that I can't blog any more because there aren't enough opposing views. They can shut off my e-mail because I'm "inflammatory". This was a huge win today for innovation and freedom of speech. Keep them the hell out of the internet and leave that to us.

You two really have no clue what net neutrality is. How is freedom of speech "protected" when the judges just ruled that the ISPs can block any speech they don't like? The government was trying to STOP this from happening.

Net Neutrality does not mean blocking web sites or content. It specifically relates to an internet provider controlling the broadband scope/speed to their own customers. The government wants a complete open highway for all customers & to allow for any other ISP providers access to another companies cable lines, whereas the internet providers want to better manage the data flow rate based primarily upon usage, and to be able to charge or block other companies from using their investments (cable wiring, infrastructure networks, etc) without proper compensation.

You need to educate yourself on net neutrality. Net neutrality is a term for open internet. If net neutrality was law, ISPs wouldn't be allowed to filter traffic, block sites or block any other part of the net. Filtering traffic is a small part of it.

You do realize that there were a few internet startup companies that were using bit torrent to distribute legal TV shows to their customers right? If Comcast can filter traffic they can make it so none of their customers would ever be able to get that service. They can now block bit torrent and make it so those companies never give them any competition.

The government has to hire people like me to run their computer systems because they don't know Jack about computers. Putting the FCC in charge of the internet is a horrible decision. They haven't got the first clue as to what makes a good security policy.

Do you really want big brother controlling the last bastion of free speech? I don't! If the FCC gets control of the internet, it's not just about providing ISP's. They also control the blogs. They can say that I can't blog any more because there aren't enough opposing views. They can shut off my e-mail because I'm "inflammatory". This was a huge win today for innovation and freedom of speech. Keep them the hell out of the internet and leave that to us.

How amusing- I knew this article would bring out the outraged teabaggers, bellowing for freedom from "guvmunt" takeover !

IDIOTS!!! you simply can't fathom the problem with monopolies, at any level, since you are riding the populist stupidity of trashing your own government.

You are dim-witted pawns of corporate America, which will happily take away your freedom as effectively as would "guvmunt".

Do you recall what long distance phone service cost before compettion was restored to our phone communications?

You cannot grasp the differnce between government control and government regulation of the free market.

The inevitable result of any industry is monopoly if the govenment does not make and enforce rules to prevent it. can you say Teddy Roosevelt?

Do you understand that comcast could restrict YOUR access to the right wing whackjob websites that program your very thingking? Not to mention raising prices at thrie whim, or don't you mind that?

Unless we better regulate our broadband system, we will remain where we are, far below a dozen other coutnries in broadband infrastructure!

This fight is about your freedom, about free market competition, get a clue!

The Bush administration put into place the only real measures that clearly violate your freedom to communicate privately on the internet or by cell phone, all in the name of anti-terrorism. the FCC has never even thought of doing anything remotely similar.

Now the Obama administration has the priviledge of snooping on anyone's private communications.

I do hope they are keeping track of the worst crackpots fomr the right, and are panning to take away your guns too.

Do you understand that comcast could restrict YOUR access to the right wing whackjob websites that program your very thingking? Not to mention raising prices at thrie whim, or don't you mind that?

Unless we better regulate our broadband system, we will remain where we are, far below a dozen other coutnries in broadband infrastructure!

US Voter you are without a doubt an enemy to free thinking, creativitiy, invention, and entrepreneurship. You have no idea what you are proposing the government do here.

First if you would prefer the broadband system of China, by all means feel free to try it out. You do realize the government in China regulates the internet so stringently that certain word searches on Google are banned? One would think these words would mainly include slang or curse words. Not the case.... Words like "Freedom" have been censored by China's government. If you want to know where some of the worlds best hackers reside, look to China. They don't hack over there because they like it as a hobby. They hack over there because the government prevents an enormous amount of content form ever reaching the pc's.

Second: You would not be "Regulating" anything that is not already regulated. Illegal content is just that, "Illegal". There isn't anything that can not already be taken down, removed, or managed by the government should contents on certain servers be deemed illegal and residing on US soil. What's being proposed here is corporate regulation of the internet. You would be handing the internet over to the corporate market. This is a very bad thing, for many reasons. The government is making the claim "Comcast can't be prevented from blocking sites". Thats a good thing. We do not want the government telling Comcast which sites to block and which to open. We also don't want them forcing Comcast to open everything up. Do you know how many viruses and computer hack attacks are stopped by a proficient IT staff that blocks traffic from certain areas? If you don't like what Comcast blocks don't use their service. It's as simple as that.

Third: By handing the internet (A technology still in its infantile stages) over to corporate america you would be stunting the growth of many technological factions within the countries infrastructure. This is in turn would effect future developers, programmers, and inventors from evolving in a natural progression. All developments related to or using the internet would be almost be comparable to a symbiotic relationship. The advancement of one branch of technology would be 100% dependent on another. I'm sorry USVoter but I find your arguement to be rather weak.

So, YOU are telling me you actually think this "lil' Bush did it first" works for you?

It's a Kindergarten Playground mentality if you do.

When I was growing up, that "someone did it too" excuse didn't work on MY parents. Where were yours,? Obviously missing in action (MIA). Barney and the Big Eye raised you, or there was some horrible parents in your house.

Did you ever hear two wrongs don't make a right? Why does "lil' Bush did it" make it OK for this Socialist Admin to do it?